Smith v. California
Encyclopedia
Smith v. California
is a 1959 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the freedom of the press
. The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book’s content, and thus violated the freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment. Smith v. California continued the Supreme Court precedent of ruling that questions of freedom of expression were protected by the Due Process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
from invasion by state action. It also established that in order for one to be criminally liable for possession of obscene material, there must be proof of one’s knowledge of the material.
had infringed upon, if not taken away, many of these freedoms, as all kinds of literature and other forms of expression were being carefully monitored. The era saw the rise of McCarthyism
, where techniques as undemocratic as guilt by association, indiscriminant violation of privacy and unsupported accusations were used to censor the general population. It also saw the beginnings of the similar HUAC, or House Un-American Activities Committee, which carried out thousands of investigations into potentially communist activity in America. Many of its methods were highly unconstitutional, and the HUAC was responsible for the creation of the Hollywood blacklist. The material in question in Smith v. California did not have to do with matters of foreign affairs, but with obscenity. The outcome of Smith v. California was one that further supported the protection of freedom of the press guaranteed in the constitution. This trend in Supreme Court decisions would influence the coming American Civil Rights movement.
s contended that Smith was criminally liable because of the possession of the obscene material, even though he had no knowledge of the contents of the book; in the law’s definition there was no acknowledgement of the scienter
(intent or knowledge of criminal activity), and so the ordinance imposed a strict criminal liability. The appellant appealed on the grounds that if the law were in fact constructed this way, it would come into conflict with the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
.
The Court held that the free publication and distribution of books are protected under the constitution’s guarantee of freedom of the press, and that a bookseller, such as Eleazar Smith, plays a key role in this publication and distribution. The court also cited that legal doctrines and devices are not capable of application under the constitution if they would have the effect of inhibiting freedom of expression by making citizens afraid or reluctant to exercise that freedom.
Further, although the constitution does not protect obscene material, the court deemed that the ordinance imposed an unconstitutional limitation on access to constitutionally protected material. This opinion was based on the belief that if booksellers were to be criminally liable without knowledge of content, they would restrict the books they sold to those that they had personally inspected. This would inevitably decrease the number of books being sold, and thus a limitation of public access would be imposed by States on books that were not obscene as well as obscene material. The court also was of the opinion that the ordinance contained no acknowledgement of the scienter, which was necessary for one to be criminally liable for possessing obscene material.
The court’s decision concluded that constitutional barriers may exist to restrict a State’s power to prevent distribution of obscene materials. Further, the court found that the higher difficulty of restricting distribution of obscene material (because the bookseller is not criminally liable) was not reason enough to require a different decision. It closed saying that it was of great importance to protect freedom of speech and press from State interference, and the ordinance in question was exactly that, and thus it was deemed unconstitutional.
It also stated that it consented to the fact that having obscene material could be seen as a criminal offense, but not without proof of the scienter. What constitutes proof of the scienter was something that troubled the court, but it was established that it would be a topic for another time.
, a similar 1931 case, Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes concluded that the first amendment alone did not fully protect a citizen’s right to freedom of expression from invasion by state action, and that these liberties were protected by the Due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. This became the opinion of the court in subsequent cases involving freedom of expression. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952), and Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936) affirmed that the free publication of books or other forms of printed word also fell under the protection of the Due Process Clause.
Dennis v. United States
(1951) found that "The existence of a Men’s Rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of Anglo-American criminal jurisprudence." Wieman v. Updegraff
(1952) supported that the Due Process clause requires that individuals have scienter. Lambert v. California
(1957) deemed that in order for a defendant to be punished for a crime, there must be a probability of his knowledge of the law before committing the crime.
Thornhill v. Alabama (1940) concluded that the separability of constitutional and unconstitutional applications of statutes may not apply if their effect is to leave a statute capable of having many unconstitutional applications.
Roth v. United States
(1957) stated that obscene speech and writings are not protected under the constitution.
Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin
(1951) showed that a State’s power to restrict or prevent the distribution of obscene materials is not free from constitutional restrictions to any form of exercise of that power.
, the question of whether the scienter is a necessary requirement to have criminal liability should be considered differently depending on whether the statute in question in at the Federal or State level. He was unconvinced by the court’s reasoning and believed that the ordinance was struck down based on generalities. The popular opinion of the court deemed that the ordinance should be removed because, without proof of the scienter, it would impose a limitation on material both obscene and not obscene. Justice Harlan disagreed with this claim and though it to be more theoretical than practical. He also believed that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally applied merely because of the State’s refusal to admit expert testimony.
The decision was cited in a number of subsequent cases involving the first amendment and criminal liability with obscenity issues. In Redrup v. New York
(1967), Ginsberg v. New York
(1967), and Stanley v. Georgia
(1969), among others, the Supreme Court referenced Smith v. California when presenting the reasoning for its decision. As more and more case decisions have followed the same precedents of protecting freedom of expression that Smith v. California did, the issue of obscenity has become less significant in the United States today.
Smith v. California
Smith v. California is a 1959 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the freedom of the press. The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book’s content, and thus...
is a 1959 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the freedom of the press
Freedom of the press
Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials...
. The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book’s content, and thus violated the freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment. Smith v. California continued the Supreme Court precedent of ruling that questions of freedom of expression were protected by the Due Process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
from invasion by state action. It also established that in order for one to be criminally liable for possession of obscene material, there must be proof of one’s knowledge of the material.
Historical Context
In the 1950s, many cases that dealt with freedom of expression came to the Supreme Court. The social and cultural effects of the Cold WarCold War
The Cold War was the continuing state from roughly 1946 to 1991 of political conflict, military tension, proxy wars, and economic competition between the Communist World—primarily the Soviet Union and its satellite states and allies—and the powers of the Western world, primarily the United States...
had infringed upon, if not taken away, many of these freedoms, as all kinds of literature and other forms of expression were being carefully monitored. The era saw the rise of McCarthyism
McCarthyism
McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s and characterized by...
, where techniques as undemocratic as guilt by association, indiscriminant violation of privacy and unsupported accusations were used to censor the general population. It also saw the beginnings of the similar HUAC, or House Un-American Activities Committee, which carried out thousands of investigations into potentially communist activity in America. Many of its methods were highly unconstitutional, and the HUAC was responsible for the creation of the Hollywood blacklist. The material in question in Smith v. California did not have to do with matters of foreign affairs, but with obscenity. The outcome of Smith v. California was one that further supported the protection of freedom of the press guaranteed in the constitution. This trend in Supreme Court decisions would influence the coming American Civil Rights movement.
Case Background
Eleazar Smith, proprietor of a Los Angeles bookstore, was convicted of violating a city ordinance that made it unlawful "for any person to have in his possession any obscene or indecent writing, [or] book ... in any place of business where ... books ... are sold or kept for sale." California municipal and superior courtSuperior court
In common law systems, a superior court is a court of general competence which typically has unlimited jurisdiction with regard to civil and criminal legal cases...
s contended that Smith was criminally liable because of the possession of the obscene material, even though he had no knowledge of the contents of the book; in the law’s definition there was no acknowledgement of the scienter
Scienter
Scienter is a legal term that refers to intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. This means that an offending party has knowledge of the "wrongness" of an act or event prior to committing it. For example, if a man sells a car to his friend with brakes that do not work, and he does not know about the...
(intent or knowledge of criminal activity), and so the ordinance imposed a strict criminal liability. The appellant appealed on the grounds that if the law were in fact constructed this way, it would come into conflict with the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
.
Summary of Majority Opinion
The Court found that the city ordinance that held Mr. Smith criminally liable was in violation of the freedom of the press, which was protected under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Court held that the free publication and distribution of books are protected under the constitution’s guarantee of freedom of the press, and that a bookseller, such as Eleazar Smith, plays a key role in this publication and distribution. The court also cited that legal doctrines and devices are not capable of application under the constitution if they would have the effect of inhibiting freedom of expression by making citizens afraid or reluctant to exercise that freedom.
Further, although the constitution does not protect obscene material, the court deemed that the ordinance imposed an unconstitutional limitation on access to constitutionally protected material. This opinion was based on the belief that if booksellers were to be criminally liable without knowledge of content, they would restrict the books they sold to those that they had personally inspected. This would inevitably decrease the number of books being sold, and thus a limitation of public access would be imposed by States on books that were not obscene as well as obscene material. The court also was of the opinion that the ordinance contained no acknowledgement of the scienter, which was necessary for one to be criminally liable for possessing obscene material.
The court’s decision concluded that constitutional barriers may exist to restrict a State’s power to prevent distribution of obscene materials. Further, the court found that the higher difficulty of restricting distribution of obscene material (because the bookseller is not criminally liable) was not reason enough to require a different decision. It closed saying that it was of great importance to protect freedom of speech and press from State interference, and the ordinance in question was exactly that, and thus it was deemed unconstitutional.
Concurring Opinion
The Court made it clear that the issue of obscenity did not factor into its decision. What mattered was that the ordinance made booksellers criminally liable for the mere possession of obscene books in their stores, without having proof that the bookseller had knowledge of the contents. This was found to be in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.It also stated that it consented to the fact that having obscene material could be seen as a criminal offense, but not without proof of the scienter. What constitutes proof of the scienter was something that troubled the court, but it was established that it would be a topic for another time.
Influence of Previous Supreme Court Decisions
In Near v. MinnesotaNear v. Minnesota
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the freedom of the press by roundly rejecting prior restraints on publication, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence...
, a similar 1931 case, Chief Justice
Chief Justice
The Chief Justice in many countries is the name for the presiding member of a Supreme Court in Commonwealth or other countries with an Anglo-Saxon justice system based on English common law, such as the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the Court of Final Appeal of...
Charles E. Hughes concluded that the first amendment alone did not fully protect a citizen’s right to freedom of expression from invasion by state action, and that these liberties were protected by the Due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. This became the opinion of the court in subsequent cases involving freedom of expression. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952), and Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936) affirmed that the free publication of books or other forms of printed word also fell under the protection of the Due Process Clause.
Dennis v. United States
Dennis v. United States
Dennis v. United States, , was a United States Supreme Court case involving Eugene Dennis, general secretary of the Communist Party USA, which found that Dennis did not have a right under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to exercise free speech, publication and assembly,...
(1951) found that "The existence of a Men’s Rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of Anglo-American criminal jurisprudence." Wieman v. Updegraff
Wieman v. Updegraff
Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 , is a unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that Oklahoma loyalty oath legislation violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it did not give individuals the opportunity to abjure...
(1952) supported that the Due Process clause requires that individuals have scienter. Lambert v. California
Lambert v. California
Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the acceptability of ignorance of the law as an excuse for a crime. The court held that in order to be punished, there must be a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the...
(1957) deemed that in order for a defendant to be punished for a crime, there must be a probability of his knowledge of the law before committing the crime.
Thornhill v. Alabama (1940) concluded that the separability of constitutional and unconstitutional applications of statutes may not apply if their effect is to leave a statute capable of having many unconstitutional applications.
Roth v. United States
Roth v. United States
Roth v. United States, , along with its companion case, Alberts v. California, was a landmark case before the United States Supreme Court which redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment.- Prior history :Under the common...
(1957) stated that obscene speech and writings are not protected under the constitution.
Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin
Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin
Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, , was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Dormant Commerce Clause.The court held that a municipal ordinance requiring all milk sold in Madison to be pasteurized at an approved plant within 5 miles of the city, unconstitutionally...
(1951) showed that a State’s power to restrict or prevent the distribution of obscene materials is not free from constitutional restrictions to any form of exercise of that power.
Dissenting Opinion
In the view of Justice HarlanJustice Harlan
Justice Harlan or John M. Harlan may be:US Supreme Court Justices:*John Marshall Harlan *John Marshall Harlan II *Harlan F. Stone...
, the question of whether the scienter is a necessary requirement to have criminal liability should be considered differently depending on whether the statute in question in at the Federal or State level. He was unconvinced by the court’s reasoning and believed that the ordinance was struck down based on generalities. The popular opinion of the court deemed that the ordinance should be removed because, without proof of the scienter, it would impose a limitation on material both obscene and not obscene. Justice Harlan disagreed with this claim and though it to be more theoretical than practical. He also believed that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally applied merely because of the State’s refusal to admit expert testimony.
Historical Significance and Influence on Subsequent Supreme Court Decisions
Smith v. California set the precedent of the necessity of the inclusion of the scienter in obscenity statutes, and in doing so it further established that the Due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would stand to protection freedom of expression from state interference. This decision made it safe and easy for book distributors to continue to disseminate the highest amount of written material that they could, which benefitted the general public by giving them access to as much as possible. Smith v. California became another decision that supported and protected freedom of expression, a fundamental liberty for Americans.The decision was cited in a number of subsequent cases involving the first amendment and criminal liability with obscenity issues. In Redrup v. New York
Redrup v. New York
Redrup v. New York, was a May 8, 1967 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, widely regarded as the end of American censorship of written fiction. Robert Redrup was a Times Square newsstand clerk who sold two of William Hamling's Greenleaf Classics paperback pulp sex novels, Lust Pool...
(1967), Ginsberg v. New York
Ginsberg v. New York
Ginsberg v. New York was a 1968 Supreme Court of the United States decision. The Warren Court ruled that material that is not obscene may nonetheless be harmful for children, and its marketing may be regulated.-Background:...
(1967), and Stanley v. Georgia
Stanley v. Georgia
Stanley v. Georgia, , was a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law.The Georgia home of Robert Eli Stanley, a suspected and previously convicted bookmaker, was searched by police with a federal warrant to seize betting paraphernalia...
(1969), among others, the Supreme Court referenced Smith v. California when presenting the reasoning for its decision. As more and more case decisions have followed the same precedents of protecting freedom of expression that Smith v. California did, the issue of obscenity has become less significant in the United States today.